The committee met at 1:32 p.m.

[D. Routley in the chair.]

D. Routley (Chair): Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Doug Routley, and I’m the MLA for Nanaimo–North Cowichan and the Chair of the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act, an all-party committee of the Legislative Assembly.

I would like to acknowledge that I am joining today’s meeting from the traditional territories of the Malahat First Nation.

I would like to welcome all of those who are listening and participating to this meeting. Our committee is undertaking a broad consultation with respect to policing and related systemic issues in B.C. We are taking a phased approach to this work and are meeting with a number of organizations and individuals to discuss the ideas and experiences they’ve put forward in written submissions earlier this year.

We are also hoping to learn more about British Columbians’ perspectives on policing, including hearing from those working on the front lines of several fields, including policing, public safety, health care and social services. Interested individuals can fill out a survey to share their views with the committee. Further details are available on our website at www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/rpa. The deadline to complete the survey is 5 p.m. on Friday, September 3.

In terms of format for today, presenters have been grouped into panels based on theme. For our first panel, each presenter will have five minutes to speak. That will be followed by ten minutes for questions from committee members to the entire panel. We kindly ask that the presenters be respectful of the time limit. All the audio from our meetings is broadcast live on our website, and a complete transcript is also posted.

I’ll now ask members of the committee to introduce themselves.

K. Kirkpatrick: Hello, everyone, and welcome. I’m Karin Kirkpatrick, and I am the MLA for West Vancouver–Capilano, which is situated on the traditional territories of the Tsleil-Waututh, Squamish and Musqueam First Nations.

[1:35 p.m.]

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Hi. Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for joining us. My name is Dan Davies. I’m the MLA for Peace River North.

I’m coming to you today from the territory of the Dane-zaa.

G. Lore: Good afternoon. Grace Lore. I’m the MLA for Victoria–Beacon Hill and also the Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity. It’s really great to have you here today.

I’m in my office on the territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-​speaking peoples of the Esquimalt and Songhees First Nations.

R. Glumac: Hi. I’m Rick Glumac, the MLA for Port Moody–​Coquitlam.

I’m on the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples.

T. Halford: Hi. Trevor Halford, the MLA for Surrey–​White Rock.

I’m on the traditional territories of the Semiahmoo.

A. Olsen: Good afternoon. I’m Adam Olsen, the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands.

I’m very happy to be working in my office today in Sidney in W̱SÁNEĆ.

R. Singh: I’m Rachna Singh, the MLA for Surrey–Green Timbers.

I’m joining you from the territories of the Kwantlen, Kwikwetlem, Katzie and Semiahmoo First Nations.

G. Begg: Hi, everyone. I’m Garry Begg, the MLA for Surrey-Guildford.

I’m privileged today to be coming to you from the traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples, including the Kwantlen, the Semiahmoo and the Katzie First Nations.

H. Sandhu: I’m Harwinder Sandhu, the MLA for Vernon-Monashee.

I’m joining you from the unceded and traditional territory of the Okanagan Indian Nations.

Thank you so much for joining us.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you, everyone.

Assisting our committee today are Karan Riarh and Mai Nguyen from the Parliamentary Committees Office and Amanda Heffelfinger from Hansard Services. We thank them very much for their support.

Now I’d like to introduce Diana Day. She’s the lead Matriarch from the Pacific Association of First Nations Women.

K. Riarh (Clerk to the Committee): Sorry, Doug. Diana is not on the call yet.

D. Routley (Chair): I’m sorry. Since she’s not, we’ll ask if Holly Anderson, program manager for the Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family Services Society, will begin.

Presentations on Police Act

VANCOUVER ABORIGINAL CHILD
AND FAMILY SERVICES SOCIETY

H. Anderson: I appreciate the round of introductions. Thank you, everyone, for taking time to do that.

As the Chair highlights, my name is Holly Anderson. I’m a manager in a very busy urban Delegated Aboriginal Agency, VACFASS.

I am currently situated on the Coast Salish territories of the Squamish, Musqueam and Tsleil-Waututh people and very grateful to be an uninvited guest here for the past 15 years.

To situate myself, I’m Cree-Métis from the province of Manitoba, from the Métis settlement of Saint Eustache, Manitoba.

I’m incredibly grateful to be speaking to you all today. In our agency, certainly, we hope to have a strong partnership with police services. To give you a perspective of the voice that I’m coming form, our agency services approximately 400 urban Indigenous children in care. As such, we act as their legal guardian and support them in their journey through care. We also service approximately 500 urban Indigenous families that come to us for family support or come to us in crisis.

We’re doing our work in the context of incredible social movements in Indigenous reform and child welfare. I’m excited about this time in our history. I’m also excited about this time for you, as we look towards legislative reform through what’s happening in our country, through the lens of reconciliation.

I also wanted to situate my words today in the context of the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women report and further in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s reports, and also in the context of UNDRIP, the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, and acknowledge that Canada has recently put that forward and, hopefully, will be enacting that on a national scale. Both the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women report spoke to recommendations in child welfare. We, as an agency, took that responsibly, have enacted that and continue to test ourselves against those guidelines. I urge you to do the same in your legislative reform.

[1:40 p.m.]

Those provide cultural safety for our people. They provide a pathway forward toward reconciliation. They acknowledge the incredibly troubled and traumatic history that we face in Canada, and they provide guidance and wisdom from Indigenous ways of knowing. As an Indigenous person, I could tell you my thoughts, but I also subscribe to those.

Also noted, I want to say that VACFASS supports submissions that have been made on behalf of our colleagues. Certainly, I’m looking forward to hearing from Jenna Forbes shortly, and I can see Diana Day has joined us now. I look forward to hearing from them. We also support their strong messages as matriarchs in the community, as well, and are grateful for our partnerships with them.

I’m going to focus on three main points for our submissions and things that we’ve talked about as a management team. I also want to highlight that I’ve talked about these comments with our youth advisory committee, which consists of urban Indigenous youth either in our care or formerly in our care, and we do see them as experts in their community and certainly in their lived history.

The three areas that I wish to focus on are trauma-informed practice, systemic racism and community engagement. Again, I’m not naïve to think that you haven’t heard these messages before but only want to add my voice to the messages you have received in those three areas.

For us, a trauma-informed practice is essential to front-line workers in every level of a justice system that has power over our people. We must understand, collectively, our history from the voices of our Indigenous peoples, and we must address that in every interaction.

There are Gladue principles that have been adopted in different levels of legislation and in other legislation. I implore you to look towards Gladue principles to highlight the murdered and missing Indigenous women’s definition of trauma-informed practice, and I implore you to have that protected in every level of legislation. Again, the murdered and missing Indigenous women’s report urges you to. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s report urges you to, and certainly even UNDRIP speaks to the importance of understanding a colonial history.

My second point — and I know I only have 30 seconds — is on systemic racism. I want to talk about some of our experiences for our children in care around feeling invisible in our community. It is imperative that that invisibility shift to investment for our children in care, that our missing reports of children as young as 11 and 12 are answered and responded to immediately and in an invested method, and that our children who engage in behaviours as they act out their trauma — that the response is one of investment, and the response is one of support rather than of blame.

I do see Doug. I’m just going to talk briefly about community engagement. We are lucky, in our agency, to have a good relationship with our police force. It could be better. We enter those relationships, at times, with fear because we don’t know their response. I would like to enter those relationships with confidence of the response, knowing the response is situated in a trauma-informed approach, one that is respectful of me as an Indigenous person and, ultimately, one that serves my clients in moving forward from their oppressive state in our society.

I apologize for those last 30 seconds, Doug. I appreciate you entertaining me, and I am super looking forward to hearing from both Jenna and Diana Day.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you so much.

Now I’d like to introduce Diana Day, lead Matriarch from the Pacific Association of First Nations Women.

PACIFIC ASSOCIATION OF
FIRST NATIONS WOMEN

D. Day: Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you so much for this opportunity. My name is Diana Day, I’m from the Oneida Nation, which is part of the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy.

I’m so honoured and pleased to be working and living and playing on the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh shared territories. For thousands and thousands and thousands of years, they’ve held this land, in the pristine condition it was up until contact. I’m just thinking about all of the devastation that we’ve seen around our territories and how important it is to uphold the rights and responsibilities of our people in this territory.

[1:45 p.m.]

I was really feeling the need to have a submission to this police reform. It’s so important that we do provide input for First Nations, as our people have been impacted by colonization and by the tragic treatment that we’ve been receiving from the police since contact. We all know about all of the terrible things that have happened to our people since contact and how the police were put in to ensure that our people are oppressed.

We’re finding that, moving forward — 2021, 2022 — this doesn’t work for our people. We have a lot of need to have input into this. So I did a three-page submission. It’s not very long. I wanted to make sure that…. there are some important parts that we want to make sure that our people are treated fairly and with respect and with dignity. That’s one of the things that our association is mandated to do. It’s to advocate for systems change for our women and the families that they manage and that they work with.

One of the important things that we want to see happen is we want to see screening from the police force — from all levels, whether it’s the janitors, the sergeants, the chief of police. We want to have a mental health screening, because we know that racism is part of the mental health spectrum and thinking about people who are racist and how they have a different mindset and how we need to acknowledge that. It’s a reality that we face in 2021 that we have these individuals with these racist mindsets in our systems — in all of our systems. It’s not their fault, because our education system does not provide the true history. The truth has been hidden from our people — from our people and from mainstream since contact. But we really have to change this system.

The first thing that we want to see happen is we want to see screening. We’ve done enough training. We’ve trained enough. We spent so much money on training for these officers, and we know that we can’t train somebody who has an ingrained mindset. We want to see mental health screening of all officers and all staff. Board members need to screen these people, and we need to remove them from the force if they’re anti-Indigenous, anti-Black. We have to stop this racism and discrimination from happening to our people, because we have the brunt of it.

Going along with that, I was quite surprised to learn that we don’t have enough Indigenous staff within the force, so we need to change that as well. We need to ensure that we have Indigenous staff throughout the police force, throughout every police force — all the way up. Down and up, we need to have Indigenous staff.

I was quite shocked that with the Vancouver police department, we have minimal…. Not even 1 percent of our police force…. That 10 percent is not even Indigenous. We have one Indigenous liaison position, and she’s not an Indigenous person.

This needs to change. It’s 2021. We need to ensure that we have Indigenous officers, investigators on the investigation team. There are none. There are none, so it’s no wonder that we don’t have the priority, that our people, our complaints, are not being prioritized, because there’s no one there who’s looking out for us. We need to change that. We need to make sure that we have staff who are Indigenous, who are connected to community as well, because we can’t just put somebody in there with a title who might have status but has no connection to community — no connection.

We have to have people that have connection to community employed within the police force that can make some positive change. We don’t see that happening. It’s certainly not happening in Vancouver. I’m sure it’s not happening in the rest of the regions as well.

I really want to make that strong call — that we’re not going to see any kind of change if we don’t have our people in there making the changes. It’s not going to happen.

My submission was just three pages long. Those are the really important components, so I really want to stress that if we want to see any changes, we’re going to have to do those things. We’re going to have to screen out those people who are racist, and we’re going to have to employ our own people in there — at all levels. So enough with the training.

We need body cameras, as well, for those officers that are working with our people. They say they don’t have money, a fund for that, but they can sell some of their toys. They’ve got ATVs, all-terrain vehicles, here running around the beaches. We need to have body cameras so that our people can be safe and protected.

[1:50 p.m.]

Those are some of the things that we’d like to see happen. I’m so thankful that we have an opportunity to share this information with you. We also wanted to support the submissions made by Feminists Deliver, by UBCIC and by B.C. Civil Liberties. All of those agencies are really important partners with us, and we want to make sure that all of those submissions are supported and are heard.

Thank you for listening. Now I’ll go.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you.

Our final presenter in this panel is Jenna Forbes, executive director of the Vancouver Aboriginal Transformative Justice Services Society.

Go ahead, Jenna.

VANCOUVER ABORIGINAL TRANSFORMATIVE
JUSTICE SERVICES SOCIETY

J. Forbes: [Sm̓algya̱x was spoken.]

Good afternoon. My traditional name is Kiilaga’a. My English name is Jenna. I come to you with roots in the Gitxsan, Tsimshian and Haida territories, but I am blessed to work, live and play and raise my son on the beautiful Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh territory.

I have gratitude for my sisters that are alongside me today, Holly and Diana. We come from an urban community whose voice is often lost, and we want you to know that we do collaborate and we do share voices and we do have strength as the urban community here in Vancouver.

I’m here today in my role as the executive director of Vancouver Aboriginal Transformative Justice. It’s a long name and doesn’t have a good acronym, but the work we do is very powerful.

I feel like it’s also very important to share with you that I’m a Sixties Scoop survivor. I was raised by my adoptive parents, and my adoptive father is a retired VPD officer. Being an Indigenous woman — a daughter of a police officer — it’s challenging to work in this industry of social justice.

I found it very difficult to prepare for today. Five minutes is a short amount of time to convey the gravity of the work that the community feels so direly about. It’s a challenging time, like I mentioned, to work in this industry, where my peers are often being violated. But it’s also a potentially great time, where we can evolve a system and have B.C. at the forefront.

B.C. has been the first to incorporate UNDRIP and create DRIPA, and I can share with you that I was there that day. I was there that day in Government House, with my cousin, Jessica Wood, and it was an emotional day — tears and tissues — at the acknowledgement of humanity of Indigenous people. I was 41 at the time, and my grandmother was 88.

Since the creation of DRIPA, I’ve been asked for feedback so many times over the various roles in community that I have. Every time, it has my mind confused. It sounds so simple: how policy needs to humanize Indigenous people. It’s 2021. How is this a question? Then I move to deep concern, because it tells me how deeply barbaric Canadian policy has become.

Back to the point. Today is my plea, to add to the hundreds, and probably thousands, of pleas that have come before me, alongside the pleas represented by VACFSS and Pacific Association. We need humanity to be present in policing — “we” meaning Indigenous people, all officers and all British Columbians.

The Police Act has been about enforcement. In order to be an enforcer and an officer, one must put their humanity away and convince themselves that it’s for the greater good. I see these moments all the time, and I saw it in my father — those moments where the officers have to suck it up and put their humanity in their back pockets. For many of them, they don’t pull the humanity back out.

[1:55 p.m.]

This loss in humanity to become the enforcer has turned officers into bullies, abusers and even some murderers. How else can you explain the officer that takes a selfie with a deceased community member on a public beach? How else do you explain the officer that uses lethal force and kills a young woman in cold blood for a wellness check? How else do you explain the officer that confines a young man in his car to serve an invalid warrant and ends in the death of this young man?

You cannot have your humanity if you’re doing these heinous things. Too many of our officers have lost their humanity to serve these policies that just don’t make sense anymore.

At the end of the day, again, it’s about our plea. I want to light your fires. I want to ignite your brilliant minds. I want you to feel the vibrations of community to bring change — not just a word here and a word there, not just adding or eliminating a phrase here or there, but big, bold, beautiful change that helps us evolve, get unstuck and grow. We need this. People are dying — not just community members but officers are as well. We’ve been stuck for a long time.

This arm of policy has great potential for defining what community can look like. I hope you feel our energy encouraging you.

Thank you. [Sm̓algya̱x was spoken.]

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you.

I’ll open the floor to questions from members.

Adam, go ahead.

A. Olsen: Thank you so much. Really, I think, a beautiful way to end that, Jenna. I really appreciate the way that you summed that up: big, bold, beautiful change. Nicely put.

I just think it’s important, because there is no ability for the public to see what’s in the chat, to give voice to Diana Day’s comment in here about the complaints process and perhaps give you an opportunity, Diana, to provide, maybe, some words to what you’ve written in the chat here, because you didn’t have a chance during your presentation. Anything that you’d like to say with respect to that specifically?

D. Day: Yes, thank you.

My submission wasn’t long, and I put many things in there. I wasn’t sure. I hoped that you all had a chance to read it, and now I’m thinking maybe you didn’t.

Anyhow, I did put in there — about the complaints process — that it is flawed. It’s flawed the way that it is now. It’s not working. It’s not working for people. It’s not working, and we need to have a different process in place. I’m just thinking about how difficult it is for our women to make the decision to go through with the complaint. And once they do, they’re not supported.

It’s unfortunate, because we need to be funding Indigenous women’s organizations to be able to do some of this work that needs to be done. You know, we’re doing some of this work off the sides of our desk right now, so it’s really important that we have really good support for our women through the complaints process.

We held a focus group last year. We’ve got about ten women coming forward who had made complaints, and the situation wasn’t good for them. They got targeted even more so after their complaints were made. At the end of the day, it seemed like the officers weren’t charged. Or if they were, they got a slap on the wrist, and someone said that it was more of a love tap than a slap on the wrist.

We need to make sure that we have people that are Indigenous to support our women going through this process. That’s really, really important. A lot of the services that we have now, those complaints offices, don’t have any Indigenous staff in there as well. A lot of the people are retired officers that are working in those complaint organizations. It just goes against our people. It’s very difficult.

The other thing is about putting officers on unpaid administrative leave when they’re charged with a complaint. We have to change the narrative, and we have to make sure that our people are feeling safe and respected and protected. There’s no safety and respect in protection when officers who are charged with offences against our people are kept on the payroll.

[2:00 p.m.]

There was an incident from my community, from Oneida, where a woman was killed, and officers from London were given administrative leave. They were still kept on the payroll while the trial was going through. So that’s not a good thing to happen. We shouldn’t be keeping these murderers and these offenders on payroll. That shouldn’t happen.

Also, the other thing about three strikes. These officers that are getting multiple complaints — what happens is they just move them to another district, so it becomes another district’s problem. We don’t need that happening. We need to move them out of the force altogether. If they’ve got three strikes, get them out.

We don’t have…. There are no bad pilots. There are no bad doctors. Why do we have bad police officers? We shouldn’t have bad police officers either. We should get rid of the bad apples, and we should shine up those good apples, because there are some good apples on the forces. We need to make those good apples the example that we want to see followed by all the rest of the force, not these bad apples leading other bad apples. We have to stop that.

Those are the things that I wanted to say about the complaint process. Thank you for asking, Adam.

D. Routley (Chair): Go ahead, Rachna.

R. Singh: Thank you to all of you for your presentations. What you have said today we have heard a number of times before as well.

What I am really interested in is…. We are talking about the structural inequity, and this is what we have discussed since morning today and at numerous different presentations. When the structure is…. A lot of times, it is not about the individual himself but the structures that they are operating in. I would really like your feedback.

When we, obviously, have this opportunity to review, change the Police Act, how do we build in the structures which are so much imbibed and so deep-rooted — how to change those structures to make them more inclusive, more equitable for everybody?

H. Anderson: I can start. Then I’m very curious about my colleague’s response to that as well.

We heard Jenna earlier reference UNDRIP and, certainly, Vancouver’s commitment to that. UNDRIP is a really novel piece of legislation or piece of policy when you really look at it, because it’s a protective policy, where it says, “Thou shall not,” and mainly, legislative says: “Thou shall.” When we look at…. There’s an article 8 in UNDRIP that states: “Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.”

If we wrote legislation simply from that place that said we will not engage in this, you have a completely different structural standpoint to come from, one that opens a door that says that Indigenous peoples deserve a separate pathway, a different pathway that’s representative of their culture, that understands their history in this country, that understands the place that they’re coming from. We have an obligation, as Canadians, to offer them that. Period.

It can be as simple…. Certainly, the missing and murdered Indigenous women’s report speaks to this — obviously, UNDRIP, as does the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report. I would also highlight, before turning it over to my colleagues, that the last federal piece of legislation in the area of child welfare, Bill C-92, is an enabling agreement. That legislation also suggests: “Thou shall not.” It suggests that Indigenous peoples have a right to govern themselves.

I’m not suggesting that the Police Act is going to start making recommendations into self-government, but it should acknowledge the right of Indigenous peoples to self-govern and should partner with them. Instead of having a prescriptive act, that partnership should speak to the systems and the legislation flowing from there — if that makes sense.

I’m very curious what my dear colleagues have to say on this matter.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you.

If anybody else would like to make a brief comment, I don’t see any other members with questions.

D. Day: I was just thinking about that too. I don’t know what they used to call it — affirmative action, or something, in the States. Something like that, I think, needs to happen.

[2:05 p.m.]

We need to have more Indigenous people employed not only within justice, police force but with education and health care — everything. So some kind of affirmative action policy in place where you say that you employ whatever percentage based on your local area. Something like that could most certainly, I think, be supported. There need to be some changes to make sure….

Then, also, with the unions as well. There’s going to have be some negotiation, something put on for the unions to make sure that they’re going to be acceptable, accepted, to make sure that they have more Indigenous people in their unions and all those kinds of things.

Yeah. It is a big process, but I think it’s an important one and something that needs to be mandated because we don’t have a…. There’s no political will within these forces to even employ Indigenous people. Even when the position is saying it’s an Indigenous person — you know? — there’s no commitment to make sure that our people are employed.

I think we have to get some kind of policy, some kind of a program of affirmative action in place so that we can ensure that our people are at those tables and are in those positions and are actively working on our cases.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you.

Thank you, everybody. The work before us is broad and complex, and we appreciate all of the views that are coming to this committee, including your own. All of the committee members hope that you feel that you have made a positive contribution to the province, and we’ll work hard to make recommendations that satisfy the needs of British Columbians. Thank you very much.

J. Forbes: Can I respond to the same question?

D. Routley (Chair): Yes.

J. Forbes: I want to share with you that in all Indigenous languages, there is no word for justice, which also means there is no word for injustice. We have [an Indigenous language was spoken] — our way. So when someone loses their way, it’s community’s responsibility and family’s responsibility to bring them back to their way.

When you think about policy, it really is about language. And as much as I’ve said that it’s not about changing one word here and there, sometimes it’s the presence of certain words that aren’t in these policies. I’ll give you an example. If there’s a domestic violence situation and a call has been made out, the police officer is told to enforce the laws of safety for everyone involved, versus the police officer is instructed to maintain the peace and offer possibilities of better communication.

All domestic files are about communication, but officers are instructed on enforcement and enforcement no matter what. This gives officers the ability to do whatever they want. When you get a good apple, they’ll respond in one way. When you get a bad apple, they’ll respond in another.

Policy needs to be very clear on the language and the outcomes that you want. Is it enforcement? Because when someone is going to enforce something on me, I’m going to automatically want to push back. I don’t know if any of you have children, but if you try to enforce anything on a three-year-old, it should be the same for a 30-year-old. So more peaceful language in policy, so that when officers are reading this, they feel the peaceful outcomes that could come out of this. Are there times for stricter enforcement? Yes. But when it’s so broad, the enforcement for the stealing of a sandwich for $5 is going to be the same as the person who’s committed a horrible crime on someone else.

The second point I want to say is our Indigenous policies really require diversion. It’s the hands of community that the community member needs to be reconnected in. So there should be a point in time where officers are having contact, and the next needs to be moved into the care of community. We are totally equipped, and we have enough people to nurture for better outcomes.

[2:10 p.m.]

The third point I want to make is our concept of College of Physicians. There should be a licensing process for each officer. If my massage therapist needs to be licensed, I believe an officer should be accountable to that as well.

D. Day: Yeah. That’s a really good point, Jenna.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you very much, all of you, for your presentations.

Interjection.

D. Routley (Chair): Sorry. Go ahead and make a quick comment, but we’ve got another panel waiting in the waiting room.

D. Day: Okay. Yeah. I was just going to say that I’m sorry that I didn’t get a chance to share my full three pages with you, but I hope that you have a chance to read it. It did have some information about Highway of Tears and how we should have a camera put up there. We have cameras put up to catch holes, but we should have a camera up to protect lives, to save lives. So I’m just thinking about that.

D. Routley (Chair): Absolutely. Your submissions that gave us this list of presenters — it was the consensus of the committee that all of the presenters be asked based on their submissions, so we really appreciate that very much. Thank you.

D. Day: Thank you so much. Good luck to all of you.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you. Likewise.

Members, I’m going to give a two-minute recess. We’re a bit behind schedule. So 2:14, say? Thank you.

The committee recessed from 2:11 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.

[D. Routley in the chair.]

D. Routley (Chair): Welcome back to this meeting of the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act. Our next panel is with us.

I’d just like to remind the panel that each presenter will have five minutes to speak, followed by about 25 minutes for questions and discussion with the entire panel. There is a timer available to assist presenters, and you can see that when you’re in gallery view.

First, I’d like to welcome, joining us by phone, Mohinder Grewal, chair of the subcommittee of the community advisors of the Provincial Committee on Diversity and Policing, for their presentation.

COMMUNITY ADVISORS OF THE PROVINCIAL
COMMITTEE ON DIVERSITY AND POLICING

M. Grewal: Good afternoon, Chair and committee.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge, with respect, the Coast Salish peoples, on whose unceded traditional territory I present today and whose historic relationship with the land continues to this day.

It is my pleasure to be invited to the special committee to speak to the community advisers submission of April 26, 2021.

The Provincial Committee on Diversity and Policing was first created in 1986. The committee’s membership consists of members from various public safety and policing agencies, along with a maximum of ten community advisers. The committee is co-chaired by the assistant deputy minister and director of police services from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, along with a community adviser.

There are six current community advisers who are all first-generation immigrants from the East Asian, South Asian, Middle Eastern, Caribbean and Jewish communities. We collectively belong to various major religions and have five different mother tongues.

To sum it up, we are all very diverse and are unanimous in bringing forward the recommendations outlined in our submission, which is only on behalf of the community advisers and not the whole committee.

The committee’s mandate includes providing guidance and expertise to promote ongoing cooperation, mutual respect and understanding between the police and the diverse communities they serve, and advising the minister on policing policy issues of related concern. Here is a short snapshot of the major recommendations that we included in our submission.

Our submission outlines 11 recommendations that speak to the need to overhaul the recruitment, selection, promotion and retention process for police officers. Specifically, there’s a need to recruit diverse candidates, focus on eliminating those with biases, and the need for recruitment data to be publicly posted. Minimizing the hiring of ex–police officers ensures progress in achieving diversity is not hampered. It is imperative to retain and develop a diverse police force that is representative of the community they serve. The representation of racialized communities must be ensured throughout the ranks of police forces.

Next, our submission speaks to six recommendations that emphasize the need for training, specifically around cultural safety, trauma-informed practice and the need for the training to happen throughout the career of a police officer and not to be seen as a static, one-time process when officers are initially trained.

Next, our submission discusses that community-based policing be practised in all jurisdictions in B.C., including the communities served by the RCMP. We recommend that a community-based policing plan for each jurisdiction be developed hand in hand with the community and be provided to the policing and security branch.

[2:20 p.m.]

The governance section of our submission looks to create more capacity for police boards and suggests that a similar governance structure for the RCMP be created. There’s a need for deep community involvement in the governance of policing. We recommend having an elected representative on each police board that can be directly accountable to the community they serve.

Next, we recommend that before the provincial street-checks standard is finalized, the policing and security branch conduct further consultation with racialized communities.

The final section I will speak to is oversight. We recommend that an independent oversight body be created to replace the independent investigations office, the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner and the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission. This new oversight body will have enhanced powers and will consolidate, integrate and streamline the roles of the three entities.

In conclusion, we believe the task before the committee is reforming policing and public security services in B.C. rather than reforming the Police Act. Enacting complementary legislation such as anti-racism and race-based data collection would be crucial. One of the major problems in the past has been that recommendations from previous commissions were accepted by the governments of the day but were not all implemented. We are suggesting that this committee break down its final recommendation to the government as follows and identify firm timelines for the implementation.

Firstly, those recommendations that could be implemented straight away, without waiting for amendments to any legislation. Next, the recommendations that require amendments to existing legislation. Finally, recommendations needing new enabling legislation.

Lastly, it will be crucial….

D. Routley (Chair): Excuse me. I’m sorry. I’ll ask to you expound during the question period, if possible. I want to ensure that all the presenters have a chance to present and that the members can ask questions.

M. Grewal: I’m just finishing a few lines.

D. Routley (Chair): Okay.

M. Grewal: I did suggest that my presentation is slower, and I’m a senior citizen.

Lastly, it will be crucial to allot sufficient funds and a cross-government, diverse staff team that brings expertise beyond just policing and ensures that the province is upholding the principles within the B.C. declaration on Indigenous peoples act.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you. I connect with you on the senior citizen comment. Thank you so much.

Our next presenter is Upkar Singh Tatlay, executive director of the Engaged Communities Canada Society.

ENGAGED COMMUNITIES CANADA SOCIETY

U. Tatlay: Thank you. Good afternoon to the committee and to my colleagues on the panel today as well.

I’m joining you today from the unceded territory of the Semiahmoo First Nation, and I would like to thank them for this privilege to speak to you today and work on their land.

As mentioned, my name is Upkar Singh Tatlay. I’m also a former first responder and POC firefighter. As mentioned, I’m the executive director of Engaged Communities Canada, where we serve the most vulnerable and at-risk communities, many of whom are racialized and under-resourced.

Throughout the spectrum of the grassroots programming that we offer, the vast majority of our efforts are alongside other stakeholder agencies and partners. Often, these will include, right on the front lines, police forces in various jurisdictions throughout the province. It gives us a broad understanding, through community consultation feedback, which is constant, of the challenges that the communities we serve associate with the policing service.

[2:25 p.m.]

With that, I’ll share with you some of the information we’ve gleaned through qualitative feedback — anecdotal evidence — and backed up by our further research. In many rural and Indigenous communities that we serve, there is significant racial profiling and overrepresentation of IBPOCs involved in the criminal justice system. Protocols need to be in place to reduce and prevent this. Concern for marginalized IBPOC groups is also sometimes not taken seriously by the police and can lead to reduced support in seeking urgent assistance.

A lack of resources — including a means of transportation in situations where life is endangered — and lack of translated resources are often a few examples of the challenges that we’ve most recently, actually, had to address for clients when dealing with police. A lack of cultural sensitivity — I think the speaker before me spoke about that as well — when responding to calls equates to a greater need for training that is developed and delivered by leaders of racialized community members; more IBPOCs in leadership positions within the justice system, to support reform; and a heavy involvement of peers — justice-involved and families — in consultation and also implementation.

A lack of training, appropriate response around mental health calls, should be responded to by health care providers, and translation services should also be provided. Lack of culturally appropriate supports and rehabilitation programs for those involved in the criminal justice system and dealing with police contributes to a never-ending cycle. We see that in the communities we serve. There’s an urgent need to reallocate funding to community-based social services, supporting those who are justice-involved, and their families, and including a focus on reunification. We need to establish a system where racially driven police incidents can be confidently submitted and to institute a process to administer appropriate consequences.

I’m just keeping an eye on the time here. Everything I’ve shared…. These inputs are shared through direct experience in working with policing bodies and witnessing the interactions with the most at-risk and vulnerable members of our community. Our hope is that our feedback today assists with the process that you’re all undertaking of uncovering strategies to better the model, and we are willing to offer any assistance and insights gleaned from these communities directly.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Our next presenter is Dr. Ismaël Traoré.

MULTICULTURAL ADVISORY COUNCIL

I. Traoré: Thank you for the invitation, members of the committee. My name is Dr. Ismaël Traoré. I’m here on behalf of the Multicultural Advisory Council, which is a provincial body that provides advice to government on anti-racism and multiculturalism.

I’m Zooming from the traditional and unceded territories of the Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish peoples, where I live and work as a settler immigrant.

I would like to start with some very general trends about crime, provide explanations for these trends and then end with a framework for developing safer cities. Statistics Canada began collecting data on criminal incidence in 1962. Here’s what the data shows, in a nutshell.

Over the past 30 years, since 1991, the general crime trend in Canada has drastically decreased. In 2013, the crime rate was at its lowest point since 1969. Homicides or violent crimes, which are often considered a good measure of the overall level of crime, have also been on a general decline. Interestingly, homicides have been on the decline since 1975, which is almost two decades before the general crime rate began its trend downward.

In addition to homicide, property crime has also been on the decline, and according to the crime severity index, the severity of crime itself has been decreasing. Not only are people committing less crimes over the past 30 years in general, but the severity or brutality of committed crimes is declining.

[2:30 p.m.]

Using complex statistical models, experts have identified the primary reasons that have contributed to this decline over the past 30-ish years. Here are some. Measures of income inequality, such as unemployment and poverty rates, have been shown to be associated with violent crimes such as homicide. Inflation rate, which is one measure of how distressed an economy is, is also a contributing factor and has been shown to be associated with financially related crimes, such as vehicle theft and break and enter.

An aging population. Why? Because persons aged 15 to 24 account for 30 to 40 percent of property crimes and violent crime. Alcohol and drug addiction is also a contributing factor, especially when it comes to property crime. Another factor is changing social attitudes and values, not only towards services and institutions but also changing gender norms, and values relating to child abuse and spousal assault.

Educational achievement plays another role, as it helps young people focus on developing skills for the careers that they would like to have. Research has found, as well, that women’s participation in the labour force, and their economic independence, has contributed to a sharp decline in spousal homicides over the past 30-ish years. Last but not least, personal security technologies, such as alarms and cameras, have contributed to this decline.

Police work, in the research that I’m aware of, is not mentioned as the primary reason for the mass decline of crime over the past three decades. This should not be a surprise to any of us, because policing is geared toward responding to crime that is underway or that has occurred. Police work is not as effective when it comes to crime prevention. The factors I’ve mentioned above have a bigger effect on both the motive to commit a crime and the onset of a crime. Having said this, I would like to end with the following two points that I would like you to consider and act upon as you review the Police Act.

One, follow the evidence. Science-based evidence helped us, in Canada and around the world, manage and reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Social science–based evidence will also help reduce crime and increase safety. I, too, want to live in a safer community. Evidence shows that there are many ways to get there, and the solutions for crime prevention are more socioeconomic-related than they are police work–related. In other words, let us take an upstream approach, rather than a downstream approach, in how we think about developing safer communities.

Finally, in 2015, Canada committed to the sustainable development goals of the United Nations. The sustainable development goals have several targets for reducing violence. These targets focus mainly on investing in upstream factors. These include income and economic improvements, caregiving support, safe and affordable housing and a more compassionate approach to drug and alcohol addiction. I encourage you to act upon the sustainable development goals and to emphasize a social-determinants approach to community safety and crime as you review the Police Act.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you very much.

Our next presenter is Jane Hurtig, the director of Resilience B.C. Anti-Racism Network Hub.

RESILIENCE B.C. ANTI-RACISM NETWORK

J. Hurtig: Hello, my name is Jane Hurtig.

I live as an uninvited guest on the magnificent territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, specifically the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

I’d like to thank you, the committee, for taking the time to engage the public in your important work. I’ve listened to many of the oral submissions and feel hopeful that this process will produce the real change that is required to create equitable and just communities for all British Columbians. Thank you for inviting me to participate.

[2:35 p.m.]

I work for the Victoria Immigrant and Refugee Centre Society, where I am the director of the provincially funded Resilience B.C. Hub, which supports the Resilience B.C. Anti-Racism Network. I’m also a member of the Greater Victoria Police Diversity Advisory Committee, for the third year now.

The Resilience B.C. Anti-Racism Network is composed of 36 organizations operating across the province. With provincial funding, they provide leadership, knowledge, support and action towards a decolonized, anti-racist, equitable and just society. The network sees a future free from racism and hate. We are bringing communities together to do the hard work and make this vision a reality.

In order to achieve this vision and this reality, we need to normalize discussion about racism and hate. We do this through talking about racism, the rights of individuals and the responsibilities of individuals in our society. This work is challenging, as I said. These conversations are challenging. The changes that we’re talking about together as a society, over the last 16 months — as the reality of the prevalence and impact of racism in our society has been revealed, for many white people in British Columbia — has been a startling reality, whereas for Indigenous communities, Black communities and people of colour, this has been their reality forever.

The work for many people is new — again, these conversations are challenging — but it’s work that needs to be done. Within the police, we’re talking about an institution where systemic racism is a reality, and this needs to be dismantled. To do this kind of work, we need to be providing the tools and support to individuals within those institutions — tools to reform the structures of the institutions and provide a long-term commitment to investing in training so that the work is grounded and sustained.

The recommendations that I’ve made to the committee all have a common theme around education. I’ll just very quickly go over the recommendations that I submitted. As you are aware, the RCMP commissioner recently acknowledged, maybe last year, that there is systemic racism within their institution. They’re taking steps towards addressing that, I believe. But B.C. can’t wait for them to do this work. We’re recommending that the province needs to have more oversight over the RCMP and hold them accountable for the services that they’re providing as contractors and to be able to ensure that any new anti-racism training that is being provided to the municipal police forces is also required for RCMP.

Police boards. This has been mentioned before today, and in other submissions: it needs to be required that the make-up of the police boards is reflecting the diversity of the communities that they are responsible for or reporting to. This is key. Then, on top of it, they need to also be taking part in ongoing anti-racism training, so that members there are really being able to provide the advice, the vision and the goals to the police departments that are required for making sure that change is happening.

Police services. This is where, I saw within the act, there’s the responsibility for training. There are details, there in my submission, about the importance of the cultural safety training that, for example, San’yas has put together from the B.C. Provincial Health Authority. This has been adapted for the Ontario Provincial Police and could be adapted for B.C. police. Key here is that the trainings need to be ongoing for all of the officers and staff throughout their careers. It’s not a one time “go for a weekend, and you’re finished with it.”

[2:40 p.m.]

The next one is around the police commissioner. I think this has also come up in many of your submissions — that there is a lack of confidence in this institution. There really needs to be a lot of work done to be able to rebuild trust in that institution, or perhaps there is a separate institution that needs to be created where there is greater diversity within that institution.

Finally, I could talk to you for hours about how we could be improving the way police are collecting data on incidents of racism, whether they’re criminal or non-criminal. You’ve heard a lot about the importance of collecting race-based data, but there’s also work that needs to be done, I believe, in the PRIME case file system in how non-criminal incidents are being taken in, recorded and then passed on to the B.C. Hate Crimes Team so that they have that information to assist them when they are doing their important work.

So that’s a summary of what I had submitted. I thank you again for the opportunity to speak today, and I’m happy to answer any questions when you’re ready.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you very much.

Now, our final presenter in this panel is Erica Scott from the West Kootenay People for Racial Justice.

Go ahead, Erica.

WEST KOOTENAY
PEOPLE FOR RACIAL JUSTICE

E. Scott: Hi. I’m Erica Scott.

I’m presenting to you from the unceded and stolen territory of Sinixt Nation on behalf of the West Kootenay People for Racial Justice.

Our organization believes that the current Police Act needs much more than piecemeal changes. It needs sweeping foundational reforms. We want to see a fair and equitable system that provides safety for everyone.

Safety for everyone has never been the purpose of policing in Canada. As the BCCLA states, the RCMP’s original mandate was “to punish the practice of Indigenous cultures and ceremonies and to force Indigenous children into residential schools.” Not much has changed, as evidenced by the brutal arrests of Indigenous land and water defenders, the high rate of police violence toward racialized communities and the inadequate response to white terrorism during the dangerous attack on Mi’kmaq fishermen.

We hope you agree that safety for all must be the goal of a police service. Together, we can build something new with community safety as the central aim. In this spirit, we recommend that the current Police Act should be renamed the community safety act to reflect what the true intent of this public service should be.

We live in a country rife with systemic inequity based on race, gender, mental health and many other factors that lead to marginalization and create barriers to wellness. People who require access to resources, support and care often end up being policed instead. For decades, money has been moved away from community agencies and poured into exorbitant budgets for police who then target the very people who are suffering due to the lack of social support and mental health care funding.

Police violence is highly racialized, with Black, Indigenous and people of colour overrepresented in fatal shootings, arrests, street checks, wellness checks and prisons. Despite making up only 5 percent of the population, 38 percent of the last 100 people killed by police in Canada were Indigenous. Black people in Canada are three times more likely to be killed by police than white people. All racialized targeting and violence by police must end. We need racial justice to navigate our way to a just and equitable future.

Here are some actions the police need to take. Centring the perspectives and priorities of racialized communities. Demilitarizing the police and banning the use of lethal force. Decriminalizing sex work, poverty, public intoxication, drugs and immigration status. Banning street checks. Decriminalizing land defence by Indigenous peoples asserting their rights and title over their lands and waters. Centring UNDRIP as the basis for all reforms.

Requiring an extensive vetting process for officers as well as more training — a minimum of four years versus the current six months, with a major focus on anti-racism, cultural sensitivity, gender and other unconscious biases, mental health care and non-violent de-escalation techniques. Regulating the use and ensuring transparency of surveillance technology. Redesigning the 911 calling system to avoid the inappropriate deployment of police.

As detailed in our submission, many communities have already developed successful complementary programs that reduce the need for policing. From CAHOOTS in Eugene, Oregon, to SNUG in Yonkers, New York, from the Bear Clan Patrol in Winnipeg to the unarmed civilian protection — Cure Violence and LEAD — programs in many cities worldwide, organizations that provide alternatives to policing are saving lives, building relationships and even saving money for their communities.

[2:45 p.m.]

Policing escalates and perpetuates violence. Only peacekeeping organizations can prevent violence. The new community safety act should incorporate the Truth and Reconciliation and the Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls reports’ many calls to action.

Reports regarding RCMP internal misconduct — such as the Broken Dreams, Broken Lives report — have led to the creation of external, independent oversight bodies with the power to audit and implement penalties and rules protecting complainants from retaliation. These practices must also be applied to the handling of civilian complaints regarding police misconduct.

We strongly recommend that the new community safety act implement restorative and transformative justice. We believe the new community safety act should adopt a Truth and Reconciliation–style complaints process that allows those who have been silenced to be heard and mandate those in power to listen and truly hear their voices. Marginalized and targeted people need to be able to voice their concerns anonymously, and civilians must have an equal role in instituting reforms.

We recognize these remedies come from the legal traditions of the very same Indigenous cultures that our current policing system has tried to destroy. We honour the resilience of the Indigenous peoples who have survived and continue to endure this genocide, and we are grateful for the Indigenous legal knowledge which provides a superior framework for community safety and justice.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you.

Thank you to all the presenters. I’ll open it now to the members for questions.

R. Singh: I would really like to thank all the presenters — all of you. I’ve had the opportunity to talk to you all in person…. Most of you. Really, really good comments on what you have said. This is what we have been hearing in different presentations before as well.

I would just like to give Mohinder Grewal a little bit more opportunity. He was on the phone.

I know, sir, you had lots to say and really good information that you were presenting. If something that we missed before, I would really like to hear from you.

M. Grewal: Thank you for your comments. As you know, I have a much longer report — a submission. If you’d like to refer to that, I can certainly point out more information, which I highlighted in my summary.

R. Singh: Wonderful. We have your report, and we’ll definitely go to that. Just one question I had on the diversity and the committee that you sit on, especially with the systemic racism, because the big focus of our committee is on systemic racism.

I would really like to know: what are you noticing? You talked about a lot of good things, like how your board is comprised of different, diverse people. Different backgrounds. Different languages being spoken. But the challenges that the communities are facing, especially the Indigenous, Black and people of colour communities…. What do you think? What is the one major recommendation that would come out of your organization?

M. Grewal: A major recommendation is coming up with an anti-racism act, and also to look at the incidents of racism that happen in the police forces. I’m just looking at it over here. It is on page 3 of my submission.

[2:50 p.m.]

I am saying that data should be collected for all aspects of policing, from recruitment to interaction with racialized and vulnerable communities. This data collection should be informed with a longitudinal lens, and key performance indicators must be identified so that data can serve the intended purpose of supporting policy development. Collecting data on racism is one of our priorities that we have suggested.

R. Singh: You cannot see it, but Ismaël and all others are nodding. They are on the same page as you are.

M. Grewal: Yeah. This was the recommendation that came from the B.C. Human Rights Commission, and we fully support that. That is our very top, overarching recommendation.

You see, our second one is…. What has happened…. Most of our presentation submission was based on looking at Justice Wally Oppal’s report on the gap in 1994, I think. It was a very, very exhaustive report, and it was accepted by the government of the day, but it was not implemented.

We went through that in great detail and all the submissions that we have got — the recommendations. What we’ve come up with is that those recommendations were not implemented, particularly in the case of the police boards. We are suggesting, actually, one rep on each of the police boards should be elected, same timing as the civic elections — every four years. This one person will go and sit on the police board as a representative directly responsible for the people who elected this person.

Some of our recommendations you look at are very wide-ranging. We are recommending RCMP to come under the complete jurisdiction of the B.C. government. They should do exactly what we are requiring the provincial municipal police forces to do. As a result of that, we will suggest that there will be no need to have a civilian complaints commission to look after the complaints of RCMP. There will be one complaints process, which will be applied to all the police forces which operate in and which are policing B.C., whether municipal or RCMP.

R. Singh: Thank you so much. I really appreciate that.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you, Members.

Thank you, presenters.

I don’t see any other questions. Is there anything else?

Thank you very much for your contribution. The work in front of us is broad and complex, and all the views of British Columbians are welcome and valued. We appreciate your contribution. We hope you all feel as though you’ve made a positive contribution to our committee and the work of the province. Thank you very much.

Members, the meeting is in recess until 3 p.m.

The committee recessed from 2:54 p.m. to 3:03 p.m.

[D. Routley in the chair.]

D. Routley (Chair): Welcome, everybody, back to this meeting of the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act. I’d now like to welcome our final presenter of today’s meeting, Louise Gordon.

Louise, please go….

K. Riarh (Clerk to the Committee): Sorry, Doug. Louise’s audio is not quite connected yet.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): I wonder if she’s having problems.

K. Riarh (Clerk to the Committee): Doug, do you want to take a recess? We can give her a call.

D. Routley (Chair): Sure. Committee in recess, then, please.

The committee recessed from 3:04 p.m. to 3:07 p.m.

[D. Routley in the chair.]

D. Routley (Chair): Welcome back to this meeting of the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act. I’d now like to welcome our final presenter of the day, Louise Gordon.

Go ahead, Louise.

L. Gordon: Hi. I’m new at this. So you’re going to have to tell me what to do. Do I read my statement?

D. Routley (Chair): I think if you just go ahead and read or let us know what you think. If you’d take about five minutes. There’s a timer on the screen, and after your time presenting, the members, I’m sure, will have questions for you.

L. Gordon: Do I have to read it?

D. Routley (Chair): That would be fine. It’s up to you.

I think if you just summarize your submission. The committee members have seen all the submissions. Then we all agreed on a list of people that we would invite to speak, and you are one of those people. If you want to just summarize or add in other things you might think about.

LOUISE GORDON

L. Gordon: Okay. I’ve actually got two documents. I’ll start now.

I just want to give you a little bit of background. I’m actually working as a governance justice manager, and this position just started about two months ago. When I originally started on this submission, I wasn’t in that position. So it wasn’t by choice that I’m in charge of justice at the Taku River Tlingit First Nation government office. It just happened. It’s a coincidence that everything I did was working towards holding that position.

I’m just going to go through. The domestic violence in the Taku River Tlingit families is an epidemic. What’s happening is that there is a lot of lateral violence in our nation and all around us.

[3:10 p.m.]

The Taku River Tlingits have a zero-tolerance policy for violence, and that does not get respected by the RCMP. It’s an internal policy. It’s actually a mandate. The way our constitution works is that we have to take things to the joint clan meeting, and our constitution dictates how we start coming up with laws and policies.

The First Nations citizens themselves actually presented this. It didn’t come from the political leadership of the day. This mandate is totally a grassroots mandate. They want zero tolerance for violence in our community, because people don’t feel safe.

It goes on to say a little bit on traditional governance. We’re matriarchal. I’m a Matriarch. I’m actually the chair of our Matriarchs group. There’s actually eight of us women. The Matriarch is actually the oldest female in the family, and that’s who our families will talk to about a social issue, like if they have a problem with violence. We’re dealing with that.

I’m going through the intergenerational pain and violence that goes back to the residential school, and 99 percent of our people either have gone to residential school or have children that suffer from intergenerational trauma from the residential school. You have to keep in mind that I wrote this before the Kamloops incident. It’s not because of what happened in Kamloops that this has come up. I go through post-traumatic stress. We all know about that.

I talk about our traditional law. There’s a traditional law. I already went through the Matriarchs. The matriarchal group is our traditional law. If there is a social issue, a problem or an act of violence, the Matriarchs are the first ones that know about it around here. From there, we react. We usually call the RCMP.

I want you to keep in mind that the RCMP…. Right at the very end, change is coming, but too slowly. We did have RCMP here, Constable Heather Swetnam, I think she was. That was her name. She actually worked with the Matriarch group for three years. She was actually stationed here for three years, and we worked with her. In fact, when she left, we actually made her a really nice vest, a Matriarch vest. All the Matriarchs have matching vests, and we gave her one to represent our respect for the work that she did with us. What I’m saying is that we have a lot of respect for the RCMP. It’s not as if we want to fight against them.

The zero tolerance means a duty to intervene in a trauma-informed way. The way the RCMP comes in is…. We have to abide by the law, and that’s all they care about. All they care about, the RCMP, now…. Well, not so much now. It changed after Heather was stationed here, but before that, people just wanted our citizens to just follow the law, and that’s it. Right now, it has changed a bit.

We’re looking for a community policing model that prioritizes personal, family and community health. Because of the residential schools, the health of the community on a scale of one to ten is probably about a three. We have a lot of really, really unhealthy people.

Take my family, for instance. There were nine of us in the family; now there are eight. All of us are alcohol- and drug-free except for one. I believe that that one person, who is my sister, turns to alcohol and drugs because of the trauma and the intergenerational trauma that she suffers from the residential school. The RCMP played a big role in [audio interrupted] the kids around here to go to the residential school.

[3:15 p.m.]

I understand that it was maybe, sometimes, against their will, but they still participated. A lot of people here hold that inside of them, and it triggers the trauma. They have a hard time talking to the RCMP and getting along with the RCMP. I think that together, we can work on increasing the trust for the RCMP. Speaking for myself, I actually had a very good experience with the RCMP when I was younger. Whenever the RCMP was called when there was some kind of act of violence in my own family happening…. Both of my parents were alcoholics, and both of them attended residential school.

Am I talking too fast?

D. Routley (Chair): No.

L. Gordon: Okay. So long story short, I had a very, very good experience working with the RCMP when I was younger, because when the RCMP was called, the RCMP came in, and I felt safe. Not all people feel like that. That was the reason why it was so easy for us to work with the RCMP, to work with Heather, with the Matriarchs group.

I understand that there are some solutions. There are community safety officers, and there are different programs happening in the Yukon. We would like the opportunity to actually embark on starting a community safety program in Atlin. It’s not something that I just came up with. It’s something that people were looking at when they passed the zero tolerance for violence at the JCM.

I also envision a community safety program for our Tlingit Nation. Our Tlingit Nation includes Teslin, Carcross-Tagish First Nation and Taku River Tlingit First Nation. We actually work with the Yukon First Nations. That’s Carcross and Teslin. They’re in the Yukon, and we’re in B.C., but a lot of our people go back and forth to visit each other.

They usually have a big bottle of whisky in their hand when they come to our community. We’re already working together, and if someone comes like that, with a big bottle of whisky, I’ll phone to Teslin, and our health workers will be a witness, and I’ll say: “This has got to stop.” They have a meeting, a political meeting. They bring the person in, and they say, “No more of this. That’s not going to happen anymore,” and it immediately stops.

We’re actually already working together to curb the violence in our communities and ensure that our citizens are safe. We already have a community safety program. It’s actually putting it into action, and I’m hoping we’ll be able to do that after this. I’m really hoping for some support to create a justice program to increase the community safety for our people in Atlin. We’re already working together, and I really want to thank Heather for everything that she has done with us. She has actually gained the trust of the Matriarchs, and that’s really good.

One of the things, if you don’t mind me to keep talking…. One of the things that happened is there was an act of violence happening. The Matriarchs just happened to be at an Elder’s home playing cards, and a young lady came in. She had scratches all over her neck because she was being choked by some abuser that came into the community. He happened to be the nephew of one of the Matriarchs.

Never before had there ever been a statement that was signed by five different women. No one had ever signed a statement. We saw the girl; we all signed the statement. That was our introduction to Heather. Then the next day, that guy was escorted out of town. We had a really good relationship with Heather, and it would be nice if we continued that relationship with whoever comes into this community.

[3:20 p.m.]

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you. Your reflections are important to us. Our work will be making recommendations to the Police Act and some other — training of police and that sort of thing. We appreciate the presentation.

I just would like to open the floor now to the members of the committee for questions. If anybody has a question, please raise your Zoom hand.

I would say also that a lot of the things that you’ve spoken about are reflected in the presentations that we’ve heard from other communities as well. This is really valuable information for this committee. We have a big task in front of us to make recommendations to make outcomes better for people. We aren’t able to recommend program approvals and that sort of thing, but we’re trying to make recommendations to the Police Act that will answer some of the issues that you’ve brought forward around, for instance, relationships with the police and that sort of thing.

Your experience and your insight into your community is of high value to our committee, and we all thank you very much for presenting.

L. Gordon: You’re welcome. Are we going to continue?

D. Routley (Chair): I think that brings it to a close, unless the committee members have questions.

L. Gordon: Okay. I thought I was supposed to do a five-minute presentation, and then there were going to be ten minutes of questions. I’m not finished yet, if I have another few minutes.

D. Routley (Chair): What time is it? Yeah, we can stay with it for a few minutes, if you have more to offer. For sure. Go ahead.

L. Gordon: I already said gunalchéesh to Heather. I’m just going to summarize everything. I already went over the residential school. I’m a residential school survivor, and I’m really interested in healing and reconciliation. I talked about the Matriarchs already.

What I would really like is to look at how we could actually set up a community safety program, a policing model that prioritizes personal and community health and wellness and recognizes and respects the root causes of this epidemic of violence in the community, including using traditional TRTFN laws and basis for restorative Indigenous justice and healing.

What I mean by that is a Matriarch group. We need more support in our Matriarch group, because right now we’re all meeting and everything, and it’s all volunteer. Everything we do is volunteer. We decided that, to try to curb the violence, we were going to start building a greenhouse. So all that was done by volunteers. We had people working, sometimes, until midnight, and it’s still being done by volunteers. We don’t have enough money to even pay people. Right now it’s not really that much of a problem, but if we keep asking people to just work for free, it’s going to become a big problem.

Another thing that I would suggest for my community is recruiting Indigenous RCMP to help lead the development of this community safety program in our community. That would mean recruiting someone that understands root causes, like the residential school traumas, and takes them seriously to make positive, lasting changes — not just a change for three years, while the RCMP is here, but long-lasting.

[3:25 p.m.]

We need a special constable in here that could stay here for ten years and do some relationship-building, which is what Heather actually did when she was here. She built relationships that I’ve never seen created between the RCMP and our community, ever. I have so much respect for her.

I just want to say another thing. With Indigenous RCMP, I have the backing of our current leadership, of our chief and council. We’re called the clan directors. So I’ve got a clan directive right now that speaks to this, and I’m just getting ready to send it in to the RCMP to make a request to recruit an Indigenous RCMP into Atlin. Carcross-Tagish First Nation did that before, and it’s unreal — the work that they’ve done in restorative justice. We want to do the same thing here.

Another option that I would like to see is developing and operating community mental health services.

D. Routley (Chair): Louise, I see MLA Adam Olsen has a question.

L. Gordon: Okay.

A. Olsen: Louise, thank you so much for your presentation. I come from the W̱SÁNEĆ Nation here, just outside of Victoria. One of the things that I’ve heard my community leaders talk about so much is the ability to retain officers that have been working with the community in order to be able to nurture that relationship. I just wanted to acknowledge the importance of what you’ve just said and the consistency with which we have heard it.

The relationship in policing, the relationship in community security and those people earning the confidence and the trust of your community are really important. I think you’ve articulated it very, very beautifully for us here today — what we’ve heard by so many Elders and so many leaders that have come in and spoken to us.

D. Routley (Chair): Thanks, Adam. [Audio interrupted.]

I really echo Adam’s words, and I really appreciate that. We’ve heard similar concerns around the length of relationships from other people with officers assigned and then moving on. Clearly, to build a relationship, it takes time. Sometimes we are lucky, but it usually takes time.

Anyone else? Committee members?

Okay. Thank you so much, Louise. Much appreciated.

L. Gordon: In closing, I just want to thank you for allowing me to speak. I want to actually….

I understand that the role of the RCMP and Indian residential schools is well-documented. There is a report from 2011 that provides and echoes some of what I’m saying. I would like to say that that 2011 report be taken very, very seriously. Something like that could be brought into the First Nations and talked about, because people don’t even know about that report.

They’re still looking at the RCMP, thinking that the RCMP just did this. I’m sure some of them did it against their will. I think it’s important for the RCMP to work in partnership in the spirit of reconciliation with the Taku River Tlingit Matriarch group to try to diffuse some of this mistrust.

Again, in closing, I want to thank you for allowing me to present today. Gunalchéesh.

D. Routley (Chair): Can I ask you: is there an existing process? When a new officer is assigned, is there a process or introduction that is formal or…?

L. Gordon: No, there isn’t, but there should be.

I know for myself, with Heather, she comes out without her uniform and knocks on my sister’s door and takes her out for lunch. My sister has been sober more than I’ve ever seen her sober in her life, just by building a relationship with the RCMP. She’s…. I don’t know. Anyhow, she suffers. She was even going out for lunch with Heather and everything. It turned out really good.

[3:30 p.m.]

D. Routley (Chair): How do you think things could change in order to help those relationships begin more…?

L. Gordon: Okay. I’ve already asked Heather if I could give her name. She is still working. I think she’s working in the Prince George area now. She was actually transferred from Atlin. She was a corporal. So if you could hunt her down, she could give you some really good insights into how we could work together. She and I worked so closely together. It’s unreal.

We even went to her house and had meetings at her house. She came out to the nation and had meetings in our office. She’d come to my house, and we’d talk about gardening. She was helping me garden, and she was helping us to initiate the gardening project.

She actually helped to write the Matriarch proposal. We were working for free, and then we submitted a proposal for funding. We only got $10,000 for one year, and that was just to me to talk about a process.

We’ve got everything all sketched out about how the Matriarchs are going to work together with the RCMP. We’ve got an organization structure. We’ve got terms of reference. We’ve got everything. We just need a process that we could agree to and move forward and working in the spirit of reconciliation. Look at the Truth and Reconciliation action document.

D. Routley (Chair): Thanks a lot.

L. Gordon: I’ve got…. Okay. Thank you very much. Once I start talking, I can’t stop. So you better not let me go again.

D. Routley (Chair): It helps us a lot. We have this huge task in front of us. We all are hopeful that the recommendations that we make will be helpful to government to do what it can to make things better — the way you are in your community.

We appreciate your contribution. We hope that you feel as though you’ve really added to our province, as you clearly have. Thank you very much.

L. Gordon: Okay. That’s really good. I really appreciate this. Gunalchéesh.

Deliberations

D. Routley (Chair): Okay, Members. That ends the presentation portion. I’d ask for a motion to move the meeting in camera for deliberations. From MLA Kirkpatrick, seconded by Garry.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 3:33 p.m. to 4:01 p.m.

[D. Routley in the chair.]

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you very much, Members. I’d ask for a motion to adjourn the meeting. From Dan. Thank you. And seconded by Adam. Thank you.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 4:01 p.m.